Ouroboros said:considering forgiveness solely from the perspective of the one granting it—I feel utterly lost in this world. you don't need some new testament to find forgiveness—forgiveness isn't something you read about, nor is it something you study; it’s something you actually live through.
👍 Forgiveness requires strength—but specifically in this sense—that in order to truly let go, you first have to forgive yourself for the very act of forgiving... or for intending to. Essentially, you have to break down your own ego and that stubborn internal resistance that refuses to grant mercy. Every subsequent act of forgiveness becomes a little easier, because we've "learned" how to do it. But then again, there wouldn't be any point to it if there wasn't a "reward" waiting on the other side in the form of pure, unburdened relief.
Well, every system has its architects, I suppose—this one being no exception. Are there any other frameworks at play here, or is this the whole extent of it? For instance, what kind of system produces an artist who hasn't even mastered sending a text message from a smartphone?
mistyfox812 said:So, why even bring this up here in the Philosophy section? If we're just going to let some "sect" from the Spirituality board dictate the terms, why don't we just move the whole discussion over there?
Exactly—and honestly, we might as well rename the thread "Is the Master's school a cult?" just to clear up any potential confusion. Personally, I've always been partial to that old saying, "Call me crazy, but don't call me a fool."
Walter Chase56 Walter Chase56 said:How exactly would one define the concept of a "sect"? It’s one of those terms that people throw around quite loosely these days—often used as a convenient slur to dismiss any group that doesn't align with the mainstream—but if we're being rigorous about it... there's a deeper, more nuanced layer to peel back.😲
The mainstream... stripped down to its bare essentials—or perhaps just its most superficial layers.
mistyfox812 said:Allow me to indulge in a bit of semantic hair-splitting—hopefully, the subject matter justifies such pedantry. Regarding your description under point two, I would actually suggest using "relevant" rather than "essential." My reasoning is that when we use "essential," we are usually implying a fixed, unchangeable essence of a thing. However, if I am following your logic correctly, your way of discussing the "nuance of separating what matters from what doesn't" seems to rely heavily on the specific context of the conversation. For instance, while Water might be the very essence of water itself, stating that water is Water isn't necessarily relevant in countless everyday scenarios where we discuss it...
I agree—I was using "essential" more colloquially as a synonym for "important," but perhaps the entire description shouldn't be taken as a literal hypothesis. Rather, it should be viewed associatively, which is arguably much more 😁 vital .
To achieve a (truly good) definition, you really need three distinct elements: 1. A clear insight into the concept itself 2. Subtlety—that delicate ability to separate the essential from the trivial 3. Durability—the capacity to withstand the relentless passage of time
In my experience, most definitions fail to hit the mark—sounding more like a sour note in a symphony than a perfect chord—because they miss one of these three requirements. Most often, it’s the third one that trips them up... which suggests we should probably treat every definition merely as an approximation rather than an absolute truth.
I have another way of visualizing this—think of sand slipping through a clenched fist—a definition is much like wet sand held in your palm. The hand represents your grasp (the scope) of the concept, the subtlety is the ability to keep the essential grains from leaking out, and if you actually manage to hold that mixture together, then you've achieved durability.
We all fancy ourselves clever—which makes sense, given that intelligence is a prerequisite for such an ego... Yet, at the exact same time, we’re undeniably foolish. We exist as this strange, tangled knot of brilliance and idiocy. But here’s the thing about stupidity: it doesn't actually sit opposite to intelligence like some equal and opposite force. It’s more of a byproduct, really—a derivative of intellect itself. Stupidity is just what happens when intelligence is present, yet somehow... lacking.😎
Jonathan Brown6 said:It’s obvious there’s no such thing as consciousness—or if there is, nobody can actually prove it, because trying to claim otherwise is just plain absurd and beyond comprehension.
You might find yourself reconsidering that theory once you get married... specifically when you're mid-dream, trying to get some rest, and your wife starts snoring like a freight train right next to you.
There isn't really a profound shift in my state of being between when I'm asleep and when I'm awake—it’s mostly just that during my waking hours, my attention spans feels significantly more... fractured. Between the Java programming and those other... various things... 😉 😁
relativity suggests: Every single word I am typing right now—it's all just the byproduct of chemical reactions triggered by atomic collisions, or whatever else might be happening if we decide to dive even deeper into the subatomic void (and frankly, who knows what lies at the very bottom of that rabbit hole?).
I’ve eventually arrived at the conclusion that one really shouldn't draw conclusions—at least not in my case, where everything feels entirely accidental... Come on, lighten up a little... 🙂
City Hall, that’s funny—that used to be my nickname back in the day (T-Z). Guest, there are actually forums out there where you can rent out a private "room" using a specific login and password—think along the lines of an old-school message board setup—where you essentially lease space based on how much memory or bandwidth you need.
But honestly, if I'm being straight with you, I just don't have the bandwidth to maintain that kind of consistency... and frankly, I don't think it would be fair to the other members to demand that level of total autonomy and lack of accountability. You remember what I told you about motives, right? In this situation, if I show up today and disappear tomorrow, it doesn't bother anyone—and personally, I don't feel any guilt about it.
So, I’m sitting here listening to this beautiful song—you know, the one that goes, “it's sad, so sad, so sad situation...”—and it got me thinking. I find a certain kind of purpose in these half-formed, jagged little thoughts—the ones I wouldn't even realize were drifting through my head if they hadn't been sparked by someone else's perspective. And of course, that person's thought is just an echo of some other words or situations—perhaps even my own, which in turn are echoes of something else entirely... If it weren't for this constant back-and-forth, this dialogue we have, none of these thoughts would ever crystallize into images, or words, or compositions, or songs... right here in this wonderful corner of the internet.
Vivian, hello there! I used to end every single one of my posts with a simple "hello!"—honestly, I can't quite pinpoint when that habit just evaporated... On this other forum where I used to feel completely at home, I’d always greet every new traveler who wandered in, but half of them wouldn't even reply. Looking back, I suspect my little greetings might have actually intimidated them.
Guest, how much meaningful conversation are you sacrificing just to keep things organized during this wandering phase of yours? You seem preoccupied with preparing and categorizing everything, whereas for me, this whole game feels more like a Mandala—you carefully arrange the patterns, count them up, and then... just blow it all away...
Rachel Bishop, well look at you! How have you been? Is winter still dreaming in your neck of the woods, or has a warm slice of apple pie finally woken you up?
Harold James9, personally, I’m much more of a pecan pie person myself—and if a hostess serves me that, she can say whatever she wants. When you're devouring one of those perfect little treats, you don't stop to consider how hard she worked—kneading the dough, rolling it out, stretching it thin... all you care about is that final, transcendent moment when it melts on your tongue, mmmmmm...aaahhh.
walnuts, raisins, and pure sugar tucked deep within layers of pastry filling every single bite as that sweet syrup drips down your chin I tell you— “mmmmmmm... ...baklava is the absolute truth” and I’m not just joking— it really is m......🙂
Building on what salemef1 mentioned... "Clear thoughts lead to clear vision," but you can't get those clear thoughts without first silencing the mental noise. It was actually Swami Vivekananda—correct me if I'm wrong there—who used this wonderful analogy of a glass of muddy water. He suggested that as long as the water is agitated, you can't see anything; it’s only when the water settles and all those murky particles sink to the bottom that the water becomes truly transparent. I suppose that's the crux of it: only someone who has achieved that internal stillness can actually project peace outward into the world, which might just be the answer to why some people are so relentlessly searching for peace in the first place.
Brenda Williams13 said:Why on earth should the term "the masses" carry such a negative connotation?!?!?
The negative undertone stems from a simple reality—if you simply surrender yourself to the crowd, the crowd begins to think for you. In other words, your individuality gets swallowed up by the collective, leaving you to act exactly like everyone else... even when it’s not who you truly are. At the same time, you can't just offload the responsibility for your actions onto a group; at the end of the day, accountability is always an individual matter.
The very term "the masses" carries such a negative connotation—it’s a bit of a loaded word—so I doubt anyone would ever calmly or rationally choose to identify themselves as part of a mindless mob. However, being swept up in the crowd and feeling that collective psychological pull firsthand is an entirely different beast. There really are only two ways to play it: you either surf the wave that the crowd creates, letting it carry you along, or you ignore the siren call altogether... though standing your ground against the momentum of the majority requires a hell of a lot more grit than most people realize.